User:Solo55 - Revision history

Solo55 at 15:37, 1 March 2021

2021-03-01T15:37:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 1 March 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.		On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.


	~~Oscar S. De Rus~~

Solo55: Undo revision 5135 by Solo55 (talk)

2016-03-05T11:06:58Z

Undo revision 5135 by Solo55 (talk)

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:06, 5 March 2016
Line 1:	Line 1:
		I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.

		In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or researches, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

		I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

		On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.


		Oscar S. De Rus

Solo55: Blanked the page

2016-03-05T08:58:05Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 5 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.~~

	In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or researches, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

	I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

	~~On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.~~


	~~Oscar S. De Rus~~

Solo55 at 08:20, 28 February 2016

2016-02-28T08:20:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 28 February 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.		In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or ~~investigations~~, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or researches, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

Solo55 at 08:10, 28 February 2016

2016-02-28T08:10:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 28 February 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.		In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

Solo55 at 06:40, 28 February 2016

2016-02-28T06:40:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:40, 28 February 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.		I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.

	~~My concern in~~ relation to the nuclear fusion problem is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.		In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

Solo55 at 19:43, 27 February 2016

2016-02-27T19:43:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 27 February 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good ~~discriminative tool~~ for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

	I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.		I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

Solo55 at 19:40, 27 February 2016

2016-02-27T19:40:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 27 February 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.		I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

	On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki ~~like~~ if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.		On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.


	Oscar S. De Rus		Oscar S. De Rus

Solo55 at 18:58, 27 February 2016

2016-02-27T18:58:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 27 February 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and ~~proposal~~. ~~but~~ I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminative tool for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminative tool for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

	I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.		I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

Solo55 at 18:56, 27 February 2016

2016-02-27T18:56:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 27 February 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.		Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

	It’s easy to ~~see~~ I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and ~~proposals,~~ but I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminative tool for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.		It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposal. but I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminative tool for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

	I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.		I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

	On the other hand, since I’m ~~not a scientist~~, my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki like if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.		On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki like if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.


	Oscar S. De Rus		Oscar S. De Rus